Dutch Shepherd Forum

I just wanted to start a separate thread about our convo on dominance.

My personal view on true dominance is that it's the sum of it's parts; like a sliding scale, the more behaviors, attitude, and just "fit" of dominance, the more dominant it is. Therefore, a truly dominant dog either has it or it doesn't. However, a dog could possess "dominant" behaviors/traits in certain aspects, but it doesn't equate to it being truly dominant. It doesn't seem like a big distinction but in terms of real life behavior, it's VERY big.

Here's a list of generalized dominant behaviors I've compiled which are commonly seen as signs of a truly dominant dog (and not necessarily ones that make a truly dominant dog) :

• Humping
  Marking
  Walking into a new group of dogs and soliciting fights
  Raised hackles on meeting new things/dogs/people
  Pushy behavior
  Controlling other dogs' actions/behaviors
  Aggression at a fence/boundary
  Dog fights with/without cause
  Placing head over another dog's neck
  Possession (commonly misdiagnosed as resource guarding)

I've been seeing a lot of rescues posting about dominant dogs and dogs that hump recently. I thought this would be a good topic to bring up in relation to dominance. I personally do not believe that humping is solely a dominant behavior; like raising hackles it can have many different stimuli to cause it. Can it be a show of dominance? Yes. I saw recently someone posted in a group other than this site that their dog would get fully aroused and attempt to hump the sleeve, except it wouldn't pull the sleeve under it but rather while maintaining the bite, dig claws in on top of it and make one or two thrusts. In this case I would say the dog was overly excited about doing bite work. A small dog once ran up to H and started humping him, much to his confusion, and wouldn't stop even as H was playing in a group. In that case I would say the dog was nervous about the bigger dogs milling around him. One rescue posted a DS mix was very dominant, because as soon as he was out of his kennel he starting humping everything. Personally, I would think it was more of a stress relief. I remember reading somewhere that humping was used in various ways and listed some pretty funny ways in which it could be used to basically relieve internal stress (social, situational, excitement, nervousness, lack of confidence) but also as a show of force. So I think when looking at humping the whole situation and whole of both dogs must be taken into account.

The same goes for marking - I've seen females lift their legs and pee and wouldn't call it truly dominant, just a dominant behavior. H and his BFF Jakai get into marking battles, and Jakai is a dog with a fair amount of dominant behaviors, but is not truly dominant. She likes to control other dogs but only when they are bothering her or being rowdy. She likes to mark out her territory. She is very confident but does not take a dog "back talking" or pushing her around. She's quick to correct and escalate as needed in situations regarding other dogs but comes back down just as fast. She can be pushy with humans but that is not her "default" behaviors. She lifts her leg to mark only if she's around a dog trying to "out mark" her. When you watch her interact with H, you see a fluidity to their behaviors, like taking turns of being "in charge". So even when she lifts her leg to mark or scruffs the ground, yes, it IS a dominant behavior, but is not dominance in and of itself. There was an Akita I once worked with at a shelter that was in typical Akita fashion a female with a lot of dominant qualities. However, she was such a people pleaser it was really hard to call her truly dominant, though some at the shelter threw around the word too much. The reason being was she scent marked (lifted her leg), she would fence fight, and she would get into fights with any dog. However, working with her, I realized that if I was the stronger one (not through force but just by not taking BS) she would easily work for me. If we were on a walk and she started to mark, I told her "no" in no uncertain terms and kept walking confidently. Took me once to get her to stop marking with me. When she fence fought, she only fought the dogs that charged the fence or stared at her squared up. Again, if I called BS, or if I walked next to the fence, she controlled herself. Her fights with dogs were her controlling behaviors of other dogs, not true fights.

Another fun aspect I've been seeing a big is pack theory - there's been a lot of talk about it on my various social media feeds. Most say in terms on dominance, there's one dog who wants to control everything in his life, therefore that's the dominant dog, or Alpha dog. I don't think this is true. While I agree there are dogs who want to control everything, that doesn't inherently make them truly dominant. I do agree with dogs forming loosely based social structures or rankings with more confident dogs at the top. It's similar in humans - in every group there's the leader, which if you think of zombie survival type movies, the leader is always the dude in control, knows his stuff, and appears fairly confident, or who just has the best idea.

I could be talking out of my ass right now. I also don't claim to know everything about dominance as I'm constantly learning about it. I do believe the term is applied 99% wrongly when people are trying to identify truly dominant dogs versus dominant behaviors. I also think that in the DS breed, there are a lot of dominant behaviors people aren't used to, especially if transitioning from a pet, and it's important to understand the difference. I also think this is why respect and positive based training goes farther with these guys than negative reinforcement; if you have a dog that genetically is programmed to have a certain amount of dominant behaviors and/or confidence, then knocking them down and constantly asserting you're better than them is like fighting nature and eventually it'll bite back.

Okay, I'm done rambling.

I think my brain just exploded

Dutchringgirl wrote:I think my brain just exploded

ditto that... LOL

I can't read your post completely now, but Kira--thanks!

Anyway. Humping. Christie posted a looooong time ago on here that humping is (or is often?) a case of a dog not knowing what to do with its body but needing to do something.

That's as far in as I've read thus far. And I expect my brain will look like a supernova, too, once I continue reading.

Okay...I couldn't not read more.

What have you read, if anything, about domestic pack structure/dominance vs. what research showed a few years ago about wolf leadership/pack structure? We had the wolf thing wrong. The leaders, no longer called alphas but breeders (which I think is misleading since any pair will breed if there's enough food) rise to that position not from aggression within the pack but from securing resources for the pack, displaying fairness, effectively resolving disputes, etc. (Aggression was found to be a last resort--it depletes precious energy.)

Humping, you got to humping and stopped ??




Well...uh... ...uh...yes...then no....

How did my reply to your post get added to your post, Lisa????? Odd. That must mean we can edit others. Hello...Bob?

lol I figured humping would be the best starting point.

Anyway. Humping. Christie posted a looooong time ago on here that humping is (or is often?) a case of a dog not knowing what to do with its body but needing to do something.

Exactly - in most cases it's relief of a stressor. Or in non-"I've been reading far too many science books" (sorry guys I tend to get stuck in science nerd mode) doing something to relieve stress. I'm about to gross some people out and I apologize, but monkeys have been known to masturbate to relieve stress of certain situations, usually where they are unfamiliar with the situation. Same thing with dogs. The act of sex releases endorphins in the brain and in a cascade effect calms the system. Dog doesn't know what to do and hasn't been taught a way to relief stress so it goes to a biological basis of humping to "calm down". H will "air hump" his Kong Bounzer toy when he gets frustrated with it. It lasts for about 3 seconds and he stops. There have been dogs known to actually get so excited during bite work they ejaculate on the decoy. I personally haven't seen dominance humping in person, but I've seen videos and heard stories of it across species. It's in some cases, uh.... traumatizing.

What have you read, if anything, about domestic pack structure/dominance vs. what research showed a few years ago about wolf leadership/pack structure?

I have read a lot that research now thinks the aggression model/Alpha model as we understand it in wolf packs is something produced in captivity and that free range packs do not work the same as what "we" think of. It makes sense biologically speaking that aggression is a last resource - primary care goes to securing resources and viability of genes. Aggression between pack members defeats the purpose of carrying on genetic viability and every organism, even down to mold, wants to keep surviving. There's actually a recent study I pulled that said dogs are less tolerant of other members of packs than wolves.
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4424647/

Abstract: Cooperation is thought to be highly dependent on tolerance. For example, it has been suggested that dog–human cooperation has been enabled by selecting dogs for increased tolerance and reduced aggression during the course of domestication (‘emotional reactivity hypothesis’). However, based on observations of social interactions among members of captive packs, a few dog–wolf comparisons found contradictory results. In this study, we compared intraspecies aggression and tolerance of dogs and wolves raised and kept under identical conditions by investigating their agonistic behaviours and cofeeding during pair-wise food competition tests, a situation that has been directly linked to cooperation. We found that in wolves, dominant and subordinate members of the dyads monopolized the food and showed agonistic behaviours to a similar extent, whereas in dogs these behaviours were privileges of the high-ranking individuals. The fact that subordinate dogs rarely challenged their higher-ranking partners suggests a steeper dominance hierarchy in dogs than in wolves. Finally, wolves as well as dogs showed only rare and weak aggression towards each other. Therefore, we suggest that wolves are sufficiently tolerant to enable wolf–wolf cooperation, which in turn might have been the basis for the evolution of dog–human cooperation (canine cooperation hypothesis).

Quotes: First, domestic dogs may handle competitive situations around resources on a case-by-case basis by using violence to establish control rather than by relying on the dominance relationships of the interacting partners. This is unlikely, however, given that in free-ranging dogs dominance relationships remain stable across different competitive contexts, and access to food resources is predicted reasonably well by the rank positions of the individuals, with high-ranking individuals having priority of access [32] (see also [33,34]). Stable dominance hierarchies have also been reported for groups of pet dogs [35,36]. Moreover, according to this hypothesis, the agonistic behaviours shown by each of our dogs should be independent of their social rank. By contrast, our results showed that the dominant dogs showed more agonistic behaviours than the subordinates. One can, however, still argue that instead of a functional relationship between the two, dominance rank and showing agonistic behaviours to a partner simply correlate across individuals in dogs. Second, Feddersen-Petersen [30] suggested that visual communication in dogs is somewhat impaired due to their reduced visual (facial as well as bodily) expression caused by their altered morphology (fur colouring and length, head shape, hanging ears, lack of tail, etc.; see also [37]). As a consequence, this impairment might lead to an inability to control conflicts at close quarters, which might appear to the observer as if the dogs had a higher motivation to initiate and escalate conflicts, while in truth they just have no means to communicate properly with each other, and thus to de-escalate conflicts. In this study, we used the same ethogram to code the behaviour of the dogs and of the wolves. While dogs showed all behaviours except knock-down, bite and snapping, wolves did not ‘pin’ or ‘fight’ (for definitions see table 3). Nevertheless, although dogs and wolves seem to use the same signals overall, it is possible that dogs do not use them as appropriately as wolves. Whichever mechanistic explanation (less tolerant or more sensitive temperament, impaired signalling, or non-functional dominance hierarchy) is true, our and former observations that domestic dogs show a less tolerant behaviour towards their group-mates and express a steeper dominance hierarchy than wolves in a feeding context nicely fit the social ecology of wolves and dogs. While free-ranging domestic dogs have retained some similar behavioural patterns (e.g. living in pack-like groups and forming stable hierarchical structures [32,34]), they differ from wolves in several aspects. For example, they are not organized as family units but rather as multi-male/multi-female groups of largely unrelated individuals. Accordingly, female dogs usually raise their offspring alone or with limited help from the father [38]. Moreover, dogs also differ from wolves in their foraging strategies, with wolves relying heavily on hunting, while dogs often feed on stable food resources provided by humans (e.g. scavenging at rubbish dumps or food provisioned by humans [39,40]; but see [41]). It has been suggested that, in dogs, this feeding ecology might have relaxed the need to feed quickly, whereas wolves need to gorge food down to avoid competitors (bears, ravens) taking away their food, and thus cannot engage in conflicts over food. Alternatively, this buffering effect of food provisioning by humans has been proposed to reduce selection against intraspecific aggression in dogs [9], which in turn might explain their difficulties in cooperating with each other and resolving social conflicts [17,30]. Interestingly, from 6 to 12 months of age, dogs seem to be similarly aggressive to jackals adapted to a more solitary life [17].



Another interesting study on wild dog mating behaviors:
Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4048177/
Abstract: Mating and reproductive outcome is often determined by the simultaneous operation of different mechanisms like intra-sexual competition, mating preferences and sexual coercion. The present study investigated how social variables affected mating outcome in a pack of free-ranging dogs, a species supposed to have lost most features of the social system of wolves during domestication. We found that, although the pack comprised multiple breeding individuals, both male copulation success and female reproductive success were positively influenced by a linear combination of dominance rank, age and leadership. Our results also suggest that mate preferences affect mating outcome by reinforcing the success of most dominant individuals. In particular, during their oestrous period bitches clearly searched for the proximity of high-ranking males who displayed affiliative behaviour towards them, while they were more likely to reject the males who intimidated them. At the same time, male courting effort and male-male competition for receptive females appeared to be stronger in the presence of higher-ranking females, suggesting a male preference for dominant females. To our knowledge, these results provide the first clear evidence of social regulation of reproductive activities in domestic dogs, and suggest that some common organizing mechanisms may contribute to shape the social organization of both dogs and wolves.

Quotes: The domestic dog is a very recently evolved member of the genus Canis. Monogamy – exclusive mating between pair-bonded individuals – is rare in mammals but it is typical for wild members of the genus Canis [113]. The ancestor of domestic dogs, the wolf (Canis lupus), usually live in family packs consisting of a mated pair, their juvenile offspring, and adult helper offspring from previous years, whereas unrelated animals rarely associate with the group [76], [114], [115]. Usually, only a single pair within the pack breed and consistently lead group activities [76], [78], [116]. As long as offspring remain in their natal group, sexual maturation and mating are typically delayed until they disperse from the pack to seek for their own mates [115]. Moreover, in case subordinate wolves delay dispersal and reach sexual maturity in their natal pack, they are usually prevented from mating through active intervention by dominant animals [75], [117], [118]. All group members cooperate in raising puppies born to the dominant breeding female by providing allofeeding and other care to them [76], [119]. The social organization, the mating system and the reproductive biology of domestic dogs differ in several respects from those of their wild ancestors. Free-ranging dogs can form packs composed by related individuals, although they probably contain a higher proportion of unrelated animals if compared to wolves [62], [70], and also a higher number of sexually mature individuals of both sexes [60], [61], [62], [65], [67], [68], [70], [80]. Although several of these mature individuals usually breed in dog packs, we have shown for the first time in this paper that their reproductive performance can increase with their dominance rank, age, and tendency to lead pack movements. We believe that previous studies on groups of domestic dogs (reviewed in: [72], [74]) failed in documenting any social regulation of reproductive activities possibly because they either lacked detailed quantitative analyses of social interactions, or because the small number of females in the studied groups prevented them from ascertaining the statistical significance of reproductive asymmetries. In our opinion, it is likely that the social regulation of reproduction will operate in small groups of dogs as well, since dominance hierarchies can be found also in such groups [70]. Notably, a positive relationship between variables such as reproductive activity, dominance, age and leadership has also been found in wolf packs (e.g. [76], [78]), and this similarity suggests that some common organizing mechanism may contribute to shape the social organization of both species. According to our view, the main differences between the two species reside in the degree of reproductive suppression exerted by dominant animals over subordinates, and in the degree of cooperative breeding, that are usually higher in wolves (see also [70]). Once we know that domestic dogs display mate preferences and that these are affected by the social relationships within the pack, we may ask how the former evolved. Notably, mate choice cannot evolve through artificial selection simply because the latter implies that human beings are those deciding which animals are allowed to mate. So, it may be hypothesized that 1) either mate choice evolved in wolves and was maintained in dogs by natural selection, or 2) that dogs evolved a different pattern of mate preferences by natural selection during the domestication process. The latter may also be plausible since, even nowadays, human beings seem to control the reproduction of a very limited portion of the global population of domestic dogs [58]. To our knowledge, the present study provides the first clear evidence that an age-graded dominance hierarchy in a pack of free-ranging dogs affects several aspects of reproductive activities such as mate preferences, male copulation rate and female reproductive outcome. Dogs of both sexes displayed mate preferences for high-ranking partners, reflected in the differential distribution of affiliative signals, and old high-ranking dogs of both sexes showed a higher copulatory/reproductive performance. Overall, our results suggest that the social organization of pack-living free-ranging dogs may resemble that of wolves to a higher extent than previously thought. Further investigations of mate choice in both species may shed light on how their natural evolution diverged since the initiation of domestication.



It makes sense that mate choice would favor the stronger of the animals, which is why wolves are run by the "alpha" male and female - they have the desired characteristics to pass onto offspring for survival - and not just because they "fight the best". Dogs are a little bit different, possibly due to the fact there is so much competition.

Here's another one I could only find an abstract on:
Title: A fresh look at the wolf-pack theory of companion-animal dog social behavior. By van Kerkhove W
Abstract: A popular perspective on the social behavior of dogs in multiple-dog households sees the dogs' behavior as reflecting the sociobiological laws of the rigidly structured dominance hierarchy that has been described for wolf packs. This view suggests that aggression problems among dogs are natural expressions of conflict that arise whenever dominance status is in contention. One recommended solution has been for the owner to endorse and enforce a particular dominance hierarchy because, on the wolf pack model, aggression is minimized when the structure of the hierarchy is clear, strong, and stable. This article questions the validity of this perspective on 2 principal grounds. First, because it does not seem to occur in the wild, this article suggests the strong dominance hierarchy that has been described for wolves may be a by-product of captivity. If true, it implies that social behavior--even in wolves--may be a product more of environmental circumstances and contingencies than an instinctive directive. Second, because feral dogs do not exhibit the classic wolf-pack structure, the validity of the canid, social dominance hierarchy again comes into question. This article suggests that behavioral learning theory offers another perspective regarding the behavior of dogs and wolves in the wild or in captivity and offers an effective intervention for aggression problems.



Definitely eye opening when you think about dominance between dogs nowadays and how to read the behaviors. Sorry if I overloaded anyone else - I get stuck in science brain sometimes and let my mouth wander.

Raven wrote:How did my reply to your post get added to your post, Lisa????? Odd. That must mean we can edit others. Hello...Bob?

you must have hit edit instead of quote, and yes, we can edit other posts

I did that once to a big post and posted it before I realized, I was able to get back the original post and then use the quote. I was so worried I made a big mess

Owned-By-Hendrix wrote:lol I figured humping would be the best starting point.

Anyway. Humping. Christie posted a looooong time ago on here that humping is (or is often?) a case of a dog not knowing what to do with its body but needing to do something.

Exactly - in most cases it's relief of a stressor. Or in non-"I've been reading far too many science books" (sorry guys I tend to get stuck in science nerd mode) doing something to relieve stress. I'm about to gross some people out and I apologize, but monkeys have been known to masturbate to relieve stress of certain situations, usually where they are unfamiliar with the situation. Same thing with dogs. The act of sex releases endorphins in the brain and in a cascade effect calms the system. Dog doesn't know what to do and hasn't been taught a way to relief stress so it goes to a biological basis of humping to "calm down". H will "air hump" his Kong Bounzer toy when he gets frustrated with it. It lasts for about 3 seconds and he stops. There have been dogs known to actually get so excited during bite work they ejaculate on the decoy.

Ill pretend I didnt read that

Owned-By-Hendrix wrote: I personally haven't seen dominance humping in person, but I've seen videos and heard stories of it across species. It's in some cases, uh.... traumatizing.

I would think that is where the dog humps a human leg? Ive seen it, very embarrassing for the human.

Sadie humps Thalie everytime they play. UGH. Sadie gets very frustrated alot, since she is so high drive and I dont have sheep for her to herd all day.

So I wonder if, for Sadie, its more of a frustration then dominance thing.


Yes, this is as far as I got..........humping..

Bahahahahahahaha Lisa. I'm afraid to write any more on humping else people will start to wonder why exactly I only talk about that....

It very well could, with the right situation!

Owned-By-Hendrix wrote:Bahahahahahahaha Lisa. I'm afraid to write any more on humping else people will start to wonder why exactly I only talk about that....

Ok, I have read the first post (finnaly LOL), After humping, the rest of the list dosnt appy to mygirls, so I would guess they are not dominant. I knew Sadie wasnt HA, she is far from it. And Thalie, I guess, would just be Mrs Secure. Thalie does Mark though. Since they are rarely around other dogs, except my parents BH, I cant really just many of the rest. When I used to go to the dog park ( Before Sadie) Thalie wouldn't care about anyone else, just the ball and the water. I stay far away now from any dogs when I have Sadie, she is more protective of Thalie and will bark and hackles raised, and I dont stick around.

For the pack, Thalie just knows her stuff, Sadie tries to tell Thalie what to do but Thalie ignores her and just goes about what she set off to do.

Please tell me you are just joking with us or just have a lot of free time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Humping, Marking, territory protection, possession control..........................I know you were just checking to see if we read everything you post beginning to end..............ah ok gotcha

I'm not sure if you're being facetious or serious Multipurpose K9. I did not intend for my "list" to be a check off sheet but rather a gathering of common behaviors I've seen perceived as things that either solely define or conjunctively define a truly dominant dog. Considering I've seen the word thrown around a lot recently, and not talking about solely on this forum, I thought it would be good to open a dialogue with other knowledgable members about it to help share the knowledge and take down some of the "taboo"ness of the word "dominant" I've seen happen on other forums. While I do not claim to be an expert, I do study it daily and interact with dogs that have various degrees of dominant behavior and am happy to hear refutes or other conjectures or opinions on it to expand my own understanding of it. If you have no will to read my post "beginning to end" then please, by all means, do not feel the requirement to. If you have nothing to add then please refrain from posting in this thread. However if you have something constructive to add to the topic of this thread, then please do so. My purpose in creating it was to help share knowledge, especially to the newer members who may have dogs from lines with such strong dominant behaviors. If there is no interest in the topic then the thread will fade into the archives like many others, which is completely fine.

Lisa - I love Sadie stories. I think, from what you've told of Thalie over the years, Thalie would be similar to H's friend Jakai who has some dominant behaviors but is not truly dominant. But that's just my two cents worth from behind a computer screen. Either way I love hearing about your girls. And if you have any humping stories feel free to post them here.

No Kira, I think the time you took to put together that informative thread was to say the least overwhelming yet contained some excellent theory. Most of it went right over my head. I commend you for the time you put into it. I agree the word gets thrown around a lot but I find the people doing the throwing don't have the understanding to truly recognize "body language" and define it as "Oh That's Dominant". I think through your day to day interaction with dogs you have a keen insight as to behaviors some of which can be defined as such. One of the best K9 trainers I have ever worked with never bought into the dominant thing...............made his adjustments to behavior and environmental pressures on the fly. He believed training is more art than science.

Personally, I appreciate the time and effort it took you to type out what we were trying to get at in that other thread. I know I didn't have the energy to do it; and your willingness to get this out there to educate is truly awesome. This statement is the key:

Owned-By-Hendrix wrote:
Here's a list of generalized dominant behaviors I've compiled which are commonly seen as signs of a truly dominant dog (and not necessarily ones that make a truly dominant dog) :

Just because a dog has one or more of these traits, doesn't make them a dominant dog. In my experience, they more often than not present as a result of some sort of insecurity (as we discussed previously). I think that this thread is a wealth of information and with all of the added information you included from studies, it would be a big help to those who don't have a clear grasp on the meaning of the term "dominance" and how it is misapplied 99% of the time. My opinion is that "truly dominant" dogs are few and far between. Is there some way we can keep this readily available to point people to?

MultipurposeK9 wrote:Please tell me you are just joking with us or just have a lot of free time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Humping, Marking, territory protection, possession control..........................I know you were just checking to see if we read everything you post beginning to end..............ah ok gotcha

Honestly... Really? There was obviously a lot of time and effort put in to compiling this information into one spot (since we hijacked another thread talking about it) so it could be discussed. I'm all about people being able to voice opinions in order to broaden ideas (which is why forums exist), but this was just snarky and rude...and there was no opinion even voiced. If you don't have anything constructive to add, maybe you are the one who has too much free time.

I said in the thread that prompted this one that I can't quite buy into a truly dominant beast (versus a beast who displays some dominant behaviors). I could very well be wrong and terribly misguided. I do agree a gifted trainer/handler inherently elevates their skills above the science of training, and certainly learns/works with a dog based on its individuality (as opposed to cookie-cutter or macho or tunnel-visioned training).

Kira, thanks, as always, for taking the time to share what you know or have discovered. It makes life easier. I doubt I'd find the sources you do/are familiar with.

Now, where's John? He'd likely cite a study or two.

Raven wrote: Now, where's John? He'd likely cite a study or two.

Yes! Where is John?!

Owned-By-Hendrix wrote: Lisa - I love Sadie stories.

Thanks, and they are just stories, you should live with her

She is really one of a kind. She is brilliant but dosnt have any common sense. They are like Abbot and Costello.

Owned-By-Hendrix wrote: I think, from what you've told of Thalie over the years, Thalie would be similar to H's friend Jakai who has some dominant behaviors but is not truly dominant. But that's just my two cents worth from behind a computer screen. Either way I love hearing about your girls. And if you have any humping stories feel free to post them here.

dominant behaviors but is not truly dominant, this is perfect, I have understood dominant as Top Dog, Dont mess with me or there will be fur everywhere. Thalie is more of super confident, knows what she wants to do and no one will stop her but she will just ignore everyone and do what she set out to do.

Stacy_R wrote:

Raven wrote: Now, where's John? He'd likely cite a study or two.

Yes! Where is John?!

Yeah!! He has been MIA